The best objective meteoric is the amount of rat content. The number of rats encountered in a playthrough with a multiplier for size, and a multiplier for elemental abilities.
Would love a talk on how to effectively deliver constructive criticism. What do you actually value as designer, artist and or developer. Great talk as always, thank you!
Speaking as an artist and writer the first best advice I can give is don't critique something unless asked. A lot of people seem to think someone putting their art out there is an open invitation for feedback. The problem is too many people AREN'T like you and don't care to learn how to do it right. First, ask and then if the creator says sure try to point out both the things you like about whatever it is along with the things you find off. Don't try and critique someone's method of creation as everyone has a different way of doing things. Not everyone is obligated to use the same techniques. It really just depends on whether or not the creator is looking for feedback on something and what kind of feedback they're looking for. Most people who put their stuff out there just want to know whether you liked it or not and why. Creatives are their own worst critics which is why critique should really be left to people close to the creatives rather than random people on the internet. The fact is the majority of gamers couldn't make a good game if their lives depended on it.
@@ZiddersRooFurry Did you even read his comment,or you just decided to ignore everything and vent into feelings,if you don't want people to critique your stuff simple don't publish it online,it's that easy.If you decide to publish it,then accept people will critique it not everything is beautiful,to many people think they are hot s,but in reality they are not,don't be a snowflake.
It's easy. Just think about your viewpoint for more than a minute and then try to articulate why it is you feel the way you do. That's all constructive criticism means. Don't just say it's stupid, or I don't like it, because it's not actionable. Describe why you don't like it. And if you can't, then shut up. lol
@@EyefyourGf You're the kind of person that makes life a lot harder for creative individuals. Is it really that difficult to not be an asshole and give a shit about others?
@@ZiddersRooFurry And the reality is not all "artists" and creative "people" aren't as amazing as they think they are and need to find another line of work.
The metric I like to use for games (and music, movies, etc.) is to ask 1) "What is it trying to do?" and 2) "Does it accomplish that?" This gives me a framework to use that isn't just centered around whether I like it or not. One of the reasons I didn't like Redfall was that I couldn't figure out what it was trying to do. And one of the reasons I LOVE Exoprimal is because I immediately got it. The writing and the tone complement the gameplay so well.
I love this definition too because it to me captures as many games with as wide a net as possible. You get slow burn, deep RPGs with strategic combat and unfettered character building, but you also get big dumb action games where ‘I shot the demons and it was really cool’ is also 1000% valid because it was what the designers wanted you to experience. It also gets you in a good headspace to try new games, sort of ‘meeting a game where it’s at’ so to speak - instead of trying to force what you expect onto the game top down.
Not a game dev but a frequent dorky Metacritic user here, I'll just say that I think the games in Metacritic's 90s are sometimes caught up more in their universal appeal rather than strictly quality. I don't mean to say that in a "grr game critics bad" kind of way, I've just observed that some of the most artful, interesting and innovative games I've ever played sit in the (usually high) 80s instead. Some great examples I can think of are What Remains of Edith Finch, It Takes Two, Tearaway, Zero Escape. I think these games are magnificent but they weren't as universally loved and I guess I appreciate that about them. There's a quirkiness to them that limits their appeal to every critic but speaks to me deeply, and I think the Tim Cain RPG™️ also fits in there.
That's the best definition of what a good game is that I've heard, “a game that you enjoy playing”, I've seen a lot of game reviews on the internet that sound like they're the “ultimate truth”, when they definitely aren't. Thanks for the video!
In my experience, my favorite games do this one thing right: they prevent you from becoming too powerful vs the world you're in. And no game does this better than Microprose's 1992 Darklands... Whoever did the economy of this game did a _very_ good job in balancing the time/money and income/expenses equations. In short, you just never have too many resources (for long), as this game is constantly chipping away at your resource pools. And it does this in ways that aren't unrealistic or annoying. Expenses are just a fact of life and they make it a seamless part of this game. Too... They balance out the power factors so that even maxed out characters -- highest skills, best equipment, power-ups (prayers and potions) -- can still be threatened by even mediocre enemies in the game. For one, even weak enemies, if they gang up on and surround the maxed out, powerful character, stand a decent chance of seriously wounding them and maybe even killing them (if your entire party is likewise overwhelmed). But even if they go one-on-one against a similar opponent, they will be challenged and maybe even struggle. So no matter how strong your characters get, they are NEVER unbeatable. This is the only RPG that I know of that has mediocre town guards (not beefed up for difficulty's sake, in pathetic hope that you won't easily beat them at low level), but still manages to make you fight for your life to desperately escape a town, wherein you've fallen on the wrong side of the law. There's other features, as well as flaws, that Darklands has, but balance of power and economy are the one thing that puts it above all others. Wish more RPGs could be more like it, in that regard!
You're the man Tim! I've also really been enjoying the 20 year celebration series about Obsidian and it's history. Your work with that team was heavily featured in ep.4. Thank you for what you do and looking forward to Outer Worlds 2 so damn much!
To me a good game is where you can feel the love,passion,tear and sweat developers poured into,it absorbs your soul and mind,you lose sense of time and reality,you remain speechless as the artistic vision and ambient music work in harmony together so much that you prefer that world to the real one "There are old games with outdated graphics that triumph in delivering this experience that newer games couldn't even dream of doing" "In other words technology isn't the limit,it's your creativity in using the current tech for the best possible outcome"
I would wager that the reason you might tend to see more criticism for The Outer Worlds, is because it has reached so many different people, that there is going to be a wider variety of opinions circulating about it. I personally love the game, and I consider it to have my favorite “conversation system” that I’ve ever seen in a game. I can’t even count how many times I laughed out loud or was otherwise pleasantly surprised to see all of the different dialogue choices in that game. It really helped me feel as if I could really tailor my character’s personality in a way I don’t know any other game had in the past. The conversations also felt much more free flowing and branching then say the way they are in Bethesda’s RPGs. Probably getting a little off topic here, but end of the day, I really appreciate and agree with your stance that people should focus on what they love and enjoy, and just leave the things they dislike behind, rather than spend all their time griping and declaring themselves the arbiter of what is a good or bad game.
For me it had kind of lame guns and tbh the story was so one sided it felt really lame. I was playing an RPG but siding with the corporations was just ludicrous, they sacrificed a nuanced story for corpo jokes, they showed no benefit to the corporation factions.
@@flingymingyThe combat wasn’t the best aspect of the game by a long shot, but I enjoyed the choice and consequence nature of many of the quests. Perhaps the end decision could’ve been more nuanced, but there were quite a few little choices along the way that were engaging and interesting.
I have a habit of heavily critiquing games I love to play. I don't know if that's my QA experience affecting how I view games, or if it's always been a trait of mine. But the more passionate about a game I get, the more I'll dive into its flaws to point out how the game could've squeezed a little bit of extra mileage from what's already present. As for metrics for what makes a good game, from a developer's perspective I think a good game is a game that you were proud to make and having learned something from the experience. From a gamer's perspective, a good game is a game that gives me a satisfying and enjoyable experience that was worth the time and financial investment. Very abstract and subjective metrics, but these things are mostly subjective anyway.
It's because when you like something, you place it to a high standard, and you want to see that it adheres to that. Because it's something that is worth liking, it is felt it deserves to be better than what it might be. This is a superior mindset to have when you are a fan of something. As it's far more useful, and you can tell people why you like a game, and not just "because fanboyism".
Yep, if you enjoyed or liked a game, then it's a good game for you. I recently finished Mars: War Logs by Spiders. It's a flawed game, relatively short with some terrible voice acting and dialogue but I really enjoyed it and the fact I completed it, is huge for me, as I have a habit of not completing games. The PC version has a 59 review score aggregrate on Metacritic but a 7.1 user score. It'd be considered an average game on those scores and it probably is. Yet I really enjoyed it. I'm now moving on Bound by Flame and The Technomancer, also by Spiders.
@@VieneLea The Technmancer is really good so far. It's better than Bound By Flame. Obviously Greedfall is their best reviewed title though and it's not one I've played yet but I do own it on Steam. Not tried Faery: Legends of Avalont though.
I think a clear direction/vision is what makes a great game. You can not like it, but still respect that it achieves what it sets out to do. I think if the game has a clear objective of what it wants to be and delivers that and then some, it's great. Though completely agree with your conclusion. At the end of the day it's all just people's opinions and no can think for you other than yourself. It reminds me when I played Two Worlds for the 360, I just picked it up at the shop, knew absolutely nothing about it, but loved it, despite the jank. If I had seen others opinion I would've focused on the things they were saying and would've never of enjoyed it.
Well said. Sites like Metacritic do a disservice to gamers (and movie and TV audiences, for that matter) by providing an aggregated score. We’re conditioned to associate high percentage averages with success (like our own grade point averages) and assume that we can find “A” games the same way, failing to remember our own impressions matter most. Like Emerson said, “insist on yourself.” 😊
I use metacritic just to get some info is the game total trash,and i look for metascore and user score,and trust me the gamss bellow 5.5 or 55 by metacritic are baaaaad,even some with higher,but i get what you are saying,if im interested in a game i will try it no matter what and see if i like it,because that is what matters the most in the end.
A 5/10 should be an average game, a C grade game. But since most Americans follow US school grading a 5/10 is a failure. But I don't even go to reviews anymore. This isn't the 90s where you just got one source of info to figure out of a game is good. If you're on the fence about a game just watch someone play it and decide if that game is for you.
@@Mirokuofnite 5/10 is not average game,and it's not scored as average,i know that is confusing,but average game is somewhere at 7.5,and that is what you see for example in ign or gamespot reviews.
@@EyefyourGf Because those companies use American school grading. But I remember when magazines (EGM) would give a game a 5/10 and call it average middle of the road nothing wrong game. Ideally it should be like that, but nobody wants something average or middle of the road so everything is weighted to the end of the scale. You've been conditioned to accept that as the scale in numbers go up 1-10, 1-100 that anything is the middle is bad.
Hey Tim. I really like the way you talk in your videos. No filler sounds like UMMM OOO MMMM etc. You know what you are talking about, and not filling the silence by reflex is a skill that I'm almost jealous of. By the way, I played Fallout for the first time when I was maybe 12 and it has since occupied a special place in my heart. When I started making my own games I wanted to make an RPG with Fallout-style mechanics, so your work inspired me a lot. Still haven't shipped a game like that, but who knows what the future holds? Not being a native English speaker, games like Fallout are what made English into one of my top grades in school. It was so easy when you spent your free time in dialogue trees! Thanks for enriching my life. Have a nice day! PS. My GF thinks all your video thumbnails are EXTREMELY CUTE because you look so happy-go-lucky in each and every one.
I agree, but just as an aside: sometimes people ranting about a game whether they liked it or not can lead to some interesting discussions on game design (so long as they're providing supporting arguments and not just stating something is good or bad).
Hello Timothy, In this video you portray perfectly the issue with today's game desginers, you don't have a view on what makes a good game, do you think that if you ask Miyamoto what is a good game, he will simply tell you "I liked it"? No, even if it's wrong or imperfect you still need a critical opinion. I actually think current generation of gamers and game designers don't even know what a game is, thankfully there are tons of ways of measuring the qualities of a good game and none of them are the ones you mentioned: Interactivity: does the game have mechanics or ways for me to interact with the game? Quality: Is the game actually functional and playable? Originality: is the game an actual innovation or is it creative, maybe it is jut a remix from other games? Audio and visual quality: did the artist do a good job in audio design? is the soundtrack good? are visuals bad? maybe they are bad but innovative, maybe the artist tried to make a new graphic style. The just feels good measurement is a perfect recipe for terrible games and it makes me wonder even when I respect your work sooo much if you just got it right by accident or pure instinct.
I don't like sales as a metric for determining what is a good game. It is said that Velvet Underground & Nico's first album only sold 30k copies. But that everyone that bought it started a band.
A good game is one that contributes positively to the world. This means a good game can: not be fun, not be successful, not make money, and not be well made. It just has to make the world a little better because it exist.
Very good arguments on what kind of game is considered good. I think one of the greatest tricks and mysteries and mysteries of our world is that everything is actually much simpler. Like it or not. Try and change your approach until you succeed. Great trick because of which I believe that there is a god. Too simple and great at the same time. And to this I would also like to say that in my youth one of the greatest traces in the soul was left by the game Arcanum. And what a miracle and delight after so many years, already learning and trying to walk in the world of the creator of game universes, it’s to run into its creator in the vastness of TH-cam and be able to write to him: - "Great work! And thank you very much for all the joy and pleasure what you gave me!"
I agree, but the entire topic has room for more nuance, so I often try to make a minor distinction between subjective and objective pieces of a game I'm talking about. The objective pieces are just the skeleton, though, so ultimately any complete critique must give way to subjective reasoning. I try to frame my opinions as additions to a well-rounded conversation rather than as an argument against an alternate sentiment. I often find myself in total agreement about the details of a game ("liked this, didn't like that, wanted more whatever") and the only difference is, like you said, how we all weigh each aspect to form sometimes polar opposite opinions (such as the Great Internet War of '23; "Tears of the Kingdom: a 10/10 or just a 7/10?")
You took this in a completely different direction than I expected. This is more about the dispute over which games are good and which aren't rather than an actual analysis of the mechanics and craft that going into making a good game. (Though I realize that's what many of your other videos are about.) I've spent a lot of time thinking about this topic and am working on an essay on it. There are quite a few things that go into "good" games, but one of the most important things I've noticed is that most good games establish normative states that can then be subverted or iterated on in some fashion. This has a lot to do with setting, but applies to all sorts of things. If the player comes to understand and become familiar with a location, for example, then changes to that location are more impactful and are understood by the player to have meaning. This is a complex idea with many instantiations and I can't get into all the details here, but one common example is when a game establishes a town area that the player continually returns to and then at some point in the story the town is razed by raiders/natural disaster/evil spirits/whatever. This fundamental change to that location really only has meaning if the town was presented in such a way that the player had time to understand it as a stable, relatively unchanging location that had some sort of meaning to begin with. Where games often go wrong is when they mismanage this paradigm, either introducing changes too quickly or misapprehending their own worlds. And I mentioned, this doesn't only apply to setting - this applies to mechanics, items, characters and other game elements.
Someone said exploding pumpkins makes a good game. Petting animals. Grapple hook. But these may just be individual features that are common in good games. My favorite feature is when the game doesn't crash.
Why even rely on reviews these days? If you are uncertain about a game just watch someone stream it for a couple hours and figure if you want to play it. Video game reviews especially from major sites (and magazines in the past) have always been corrupt or the reviewer just plays 30 minutes and writes a review. The short playtime full review got exposed when achievements became a thing and people figured out the accounts being used. As for what makes a good game. It's subjective to the person playing the game. It's the same thing with all media since its subjective based on the taste of the end user. It might be easier to define what a bad game is over what a good game is. In my opinion a bad game is one that is fundamentally broken or unplayable. It doesn't matter if the story is good, or it did one thing right. If the game doesn't work, or requires a bunch of mods, and fan patches to get running or be tolerable then it's not a good game on its own merits. That's not counting 20-30 year old PC games that won't run on modern hardware though.
You need to make a mini YT series based on this premise alone. What makes a Good game What makes a Bad game What is actual critique versus subjective ad-hominem
It's weird when people say they hate "jank" games and yet all of a sudden when a AAA title bugs out, it is suddenly fun. Sometimes its better to play a deeply flawed game than a polished one. One still has potential and the other destroys it.
Hey Tim, this video actually made me question something, i would love to hear your thoughts about it in the future, maybe in a video even, its more about games in the past vs games today, why do you think people prefer how old games were made and how do you see these opinion, being a guy that has been developing games for decades now, maybe its because at the time, there was no set convention for certain genres, so every game felt unique? Or maybe because games didnt had the luxury to be release half-cooked? Or maybe these are myths that us, people that play games think its true, regardless i think that a guy that have such beloved games in your portfolio, from old to new, maybe have something in mind when it comes to these questions
To me, good games are these that were made by people who put lot of ideas and heart into them. People who want to make games fun and not just hastily stitch something together deserve my respect. It usually reflects in the game. Many people told me that older Fallouts are too clunky or have bad graphics and that Outer Worlds aren't what they expected, I love these games dearly. They have unique charm and you can tell the developers worked on them, even though they have their flaws or they don't fulfill someone's expectations. I can see the worldbuilding, the character building (especially how useful are companions in the Outer Worlds), the humor etc. these games always bring some unique things. Lot of older games were good and groundbreaking, because people projected various interesting ideas into them, new engines, new stories, new plot twists, innovative mechanics and more. When a game seems bland, repetitive, not very memorable or copying different franchise, it is usually because the devs only wanted money and not many people were interested in developing something deep, or maybe they weren't allowed to by time constraints or company demands.
Sometimes reviews can get tanked on some technical issues... crashes, so visual bugs, etc. Some of the "most favorite" games are about "feel"... immersive feel in the game, fun ability matching (even if not power fantasy), etc.
I think the value of games criticism is in giving the reader a language to express the impressions they already got about a game. Reading criticism as a recommendation is very tricky and other than what you said about finding reviewers with similar tastes to you, there's no surefire way to always be happy with your purchases.
Putting my utilitarian hat on, the value of a game is the potential aggregate utility it provides. So sales divided by market size times review as a percentage divided by sales price should give you an estimate.
Hi Tim, Concerning Arcanum: in the Tarant Crystal Ball sidequest, why was it decided to make it impossible to be morally neutral in that situation? I wanted to know more about Madame Toussause's motivation before making a decision.
In my experience the best way I can judge a game is to judge it's internal consistency. it's not an objective view but so is the art nevertheless as an artist you still can improve your art so there must be a way to judge. Judge not in global scope like "this game mechanic is bad" or "this narrative is bad" but create a mental map of a game as you explore it and as further you explore a game you can find elements of the game or see how existing things evolve and try to either broaden your mental map of the game or decide that some element does not fit your map. You can be wrong and you will be wrong sometimes but it is a best reasoning that I can think of.
I'd think something like steam reviews are better than professional critics because the pros are often ideological, and the customers are, well, the ones buying the games and are the actual fans.
Well people should enjoy whatever they like movie or a game,but there are games or movies which are objectively bad/good,it's not that simple to point out why certain people will have fun with something or wont,but bad/good games exist,and in most cases i could name more then few reasons why certain game is better then xx game,and it has nothing to do with sales,for example i can compare one of my favorite games GTA San Andreas vs GTA V,and GTA 5 comes nowhere near San Andreas in gameplay features,il name just couple things present in San Andreas which are not in GTA 5 or just partially present. 1.Character Customization (it's present in GTA 5,but not on same level,it's basic) 2.Property Purchases (GTA 5 you can do this only in multiplayer,can't do it in SP) 3.Gang Territories ( in San Andreas you could fight for land with gangs,and generate income) 4.Multiple Cities (you could visit other cities,which were quite different one from another) 5.Role-Playing Elements (Stats,getting fat,muscle,better driving etc) 6.Mini games (which are not present in gta 5,as far as i can remember) You can't say gta 5 is objectively better then San Andreas (unless you are only looking at graphics) while it's missing all these features,i mean you can say it,but you would be lying trough your teeth.
So true my dear Tim! I'm so annoyed by these people who want to bend you at their will and opinions about what is good and what is bad... to all of them I say STFU!!!
One thing that might help is when people focus on specific types of games and what they have to offer. Let's look at the upcoming Baldur's Gate 3 and Starfield. I'd like to think if I'm looking for a sandbox/sim style game, I would likely get more out of Starfield than Baldur's Gate 3, but can I really expect either of these games to be as much of a sandbox as Rimworld? I don't think so, but if I were to say they are "bad" sims, well, that's a little silly too, but rather I could rephrase that to say they lack the depth of simulation features that other games have, which *might* be a bad thing for people looking for a sim that just have no idea what exactly these games are, see the level of detail in BG3 and SF, and could assume the depth of simulation *could* be high in those games too, without knowing any better. That's kind of an easy example for people who do know these kinds of games, but I think it gets far more nuanced than that when you start getting into details and expectations, that even when people get into a big rant, even an angry one, it's just because they are really into, otherwise they probably wouldn't have any emotional preference toward it at all, and it's best to consider the overall passion regardless of directional leaning and then see if any useful information is there one way or another, because I've seen positive reviews that have given me no useful information so it's just not super easy to say one way of doing a review or talking about a game is the ideal way. I think those opinions are important, but certainly it would be nice if everyone was constructive, but jeeze, how many other things am I going to wish for?
What make a good game is highly individual, but it turn into a damn battle of good vs evil in who is right when people start voice their opinions. If you look back at games such as Fallout 1 and 2, I don't think they could or would been made today with the humor, inuendos and such it had. I like genres of games, and I like games that approach the player as an adult and not aim to reach some pg rating. What make bad games for me is games that try nickle and dime the player for all its worth with micro transactions, loot boxes and dlc's that feel like it should been part of the core game at release.
I used to use that find-a-reviewer method for movies but sort of reversed. I found a reviewer (earlier it was a pair of reviewers, you can probably guess who) whose reviews sort of felt like they'd fallen into a pattern, and I used their takes to sort of get a feel for their preferences for genre and experimental qualities. It got to the point where when I read the review, not just looked at the rating, I knew pretty often whether or not I'd like it based on what their reaction was, whether they liked it or not. Also taught me a lot about my own predilections :)
Only metric i use is how fun is this game (the only use foe it is to entertain me). Fallout is amazing fun. Arcanum as well. I still play both and have played them for over 20 years. They stand above other entertainment. I agree with your two end sentences.
I think it's important to draw a distinction between a game that's "well made" and a game thats "fun", because they are not the same thing. A game that's well-made can have quality graphics, balanced mechanics, an efficient and bug-free engine, etc, and still be a terribly boring experience for some players. You see this most often today with AAA games, mostly due to their focus on formulaic and market-approved design. Likewise, you can have a game with cheap graphics, shallow gameplay, balance issues, and an unstable engine, and have it become a beloved cult classic. Good examples include the EDF series, as well as games with fundamental design or accessibility issues like pre-Steam Dwarf Fortress. Both games are a blast to play for their fans, but have some glaring issues that would never be acceptable in a professional environment (though EDF seems to just be running with it these days). As gamers, we should learn to distinguish between these two concepts, to make it easier to discuss and critique products. As game developers, we should learn this distinction so as not to be mislead by marketability, social trends, or personal biases. The player experience shouldn't get lost by trying to polish and over-tune the game design. I've seen too many projects ruined by such short-sightedness
Id love to hear your thoughts on letting others in on your creative vision effectively. Fallout was your baby, how do you deal with people suggesting changes to it when you're going through making a game with others?
Absolutely! I find it so strange that people want to over simplify and categorize everything. It's not just games, but every facet of life. Just go with your own personal tastes and who cares beyond that!
Just listened to the video you leaving Fallout 2. That made me ashamed that I never bought and played Arcanum. I was tied in military service at the time and somehow missed it afterwards. I promise, I'll fix my mistake soon. But I really enjoyed the ***t out of Vampire Masquerade few years later. I just remember how brutal it was on my Pentium 4 and GeForce4 back then. 😊
You know the game is more than good if it blows your mind,do something what you have never seen/felt before. For me, more than good games were: tetris early 90`s(simple concept , easy to understand but difficult to master ,endless fun), doom 1993(shooting got real n scary, and it has coop now), tomb raider 1996(when games went fully 3d n puzzle solving was fun on square grid, you could even swim under water) fallout 1997(my first introduction to crpg and what a ride it was) , half life 1998(when AI enemies were broadcasting your location between themself on the radio and then they threw grenade at the very spot where you were hidden, you were nowhere safe ), Gta 3 2001 (when sandbox went 3D n you forgot to play main story you just try joyriding around town for hours upon hours listening to local radio stations ). Half life 2 2004 (to solve puzzles you need to use gravity n physics what? no way valve nailed this),The walking dead 2012 (the story done right ,on its own master piece, very impactful ) GTA 5 2013(you think you have seen it all but then rockstar introduces 3 different characters which you can seamlessly switch between). Beat saber vr 2018 (cant believe video games made me exercises while looking silly).
It's a good game, Brant. But, yes, seriously, it's been a long time since I got tired of the idea of quantifying how good a game is. And I'm especially exhausted by people who think it can be done "objectively". Consensus isn't necessarily useful, and at the end of the day a good game (a good piece of art) on an individual level is one you willingly engage with that leaves you with feelings you are satisfied with. (You can be both sad and happy about that sadness if that's your jam, but if you're sad in an unsatisfying way... the game might not have been good for/to you.)
So what I'm hearing is if I'm going to give someone my opinion about a game I should include the reasons why. Such as "I like Frostpunk because you make choices with long ranging consequences and the consequences can change between playthroughs." Rather than just "Frostpunk is a good game."
I should add something to this discourse: Some highly rated games (via reviews mostly) haven't aged well and on modern reviewing may not be considered as good as they were upon release (for various reasons). Many folk, for example, say that Synidate is one of the best games ever made. I tried to play it recently on modern tech with a modern eye and hated it. I think it's in part due its age and the fact games have come on so much now and that I didn't play it at the time (I'm in my 40s, so was I old enough to play it at the time). That doesn't mean it's a terrible game. I just don't like it and I'm not going to begrudge anyone of it being one of their favourites, or indeed the innovation it had at the time in the gaming industry.
Fallout sales to outer world sales is not a fair comparison because fallout is not on consoles. Most people that loves fallout 3 through fallout 4 would probably buy and play Fallout if they didn't have to buy a PC to do it.
I don't know what comes into the pot when you're making a good game, but I definitely know how you can recognize a good game. For example, back in 1998, I had an old 486dx2 and for some reason, when playing Fallout my computer simply rebooted itself from time to time. (it could be 5 minutes or 1 hour. Every single time the combat switched from real-time to turn-based, the pc could crash. ) But it didn't matter, I played Fallout 1 for months and months, even though I had to relaunch my pc 20, 30 times in one session, all that while looking to the dictionary as I couldn't speak English at all back then. The world was so good that such "minuscule" inconveniences couldn't bother me.
To compare game popularity by units purchased should kind of be like inflation where you consider the percentage of population that was playing games at the time. I would say that the population playing video games is much larger today than it was when Fallout came out
As soon as I can sustain my way through means of passive income, I will for sure make a game of my own some day. But not before then ,because it would for sure stress me out.
"Good games is the ones you like" is a good argument against haters, but it's not very good predictive property. People pursue different qualities in games. This means that no objective measure can exist, even if these qualities themselves are objective. I strongly believe there are important objective (explanatory, not statistical!) qualities in games that should be sought after. "This game is good because" is a good highlight of a specific quality. Conflating it to a single impression about a game as a whole is a mistake.
I never played a game thats as unique as Bloodlines & Fallout - if I could erase my memory of playing them I'd do it in an instant so that I could experience them all over again - That makes a good game to me
This is the only bad take i've heard on this amazing channel. Good and bad and can enjoy it or not are not the same thing. We can discuss about a game acomplishing what it set out to do or what it should do, regardless of we enjoy it or not.
Your opinion doesn't not matter though. We're interested in what games you like because we're interested in you and your thoughts and ideas. I think Fallout 3 is hot trash, but it's cool to know that you like it for instance.
I believe a game is good if you want to play it without any other factors except it genuinely was fun/interesting/enjoyable. Alot of games nowadays drag you along for more hours, and others were made so big youd never finish them.
Hello! New fan here. I'm purely a Mobile user and don't have access to a CPU so I won't be accessing the original content of fallout so a question: Can you describe the master? Most videos that is a master video you can see the publisher of that video loving the experience he went through in dealing with a master occupied wasteland. Can you do something with it as well? One thought I have is the Harold cut scenes. Harold just says he was found by some travelers and once they brought him back to the city he remains ever since. Is the Harold from fallout 3 the same Harold? Anyway it's a honor to ask the origins seed as to what transpires in that storyline thank you so much!
Hi Tim! I'd love to hear some recent stories about you and Leonard's involvement in the development of Outer Worlds, if you can so soon. It would be especially interesting because I imagine development on a game of this scale and technical complexity (with reputations of other games affecting decision making) compared to your Interplay and Troika games was a completely different experience.
The best objective meteoric is the amount of rat content. The number of rats encountered in a playthrough with a multiplier for size, and a multiplier for elemental abilities.
This is also how I decide on my favourite movies. Favourites include Of Unknown Origin, Ratatouille and Notte di Terrore.
We have been calling and emailing asking for more rats
Would love a talk on how to effectively deliver constructive criticism.
What do you actually value as designer, artist and or developer.
Great talk as always, thank you!
Speaking as an artist and writer the first best advice I can give is don't critique something unless asked. A lot of people seem to think someone putting their art out there is an open invitation for feedback. The problem is too many people AREN'T like you and don't care to learn how to do it right. First, ask and then if the creator says sure try to point out both the things you like about whatever it is along with the things you find off. Don't try and critique someone's method of creation as everyone has a different way of doing things. Not everyone is obligated to use the same techniques. It really just depends on whether or not the creator is looking for feedback on something and what kind of feedback they're looking for.
Most people who put their stuff out there just want to know whether you liked it or not and why. Creatives are their own worst critics which is why critique should really be left to people close to the creatives rather than random people on the internet. The fact is the majority of gamers couldn't make a good game if their lives depended on it.
@@ZiddersRooFurry Did you even read his comment,or you just decided to ignore everything and vent into feelings,if you don't want people to critique your stuff simple don't publish it online,it's that easy.If you decide to publish it,then accept people will critique it not everything is beautiful,to many people think they are hot s,but in reality they are not,don't be a snowflake.
It's easy. Just think about your viewpoint for more than a minute and then try to articulate why it is you feel the way you do. That's all constructive criticism means. Don't just say it's stupid, or I don't like it, because it's not actionable. Describe why you don't like it. And if you can't, then shut up. lol
@@EyefyourGf You're the kind of person that makes life a lot harder for creative individuals. Is it really that difficult to not be an asshole and give a shit about others?
@@ZiddersRooFurry And the reality is not all "artists" and creative "people" aren't as amazing as they think they are and need to find another line of work.
The metric I like to use for games (and music, movies, etc.) is to ask 1) "What is it trying to do?" and 2) "Does it accomplish that?" This gives me a framework to use that isn't just centered around whether I like it or not. One of the reasons I didn't like Redfall was that I couldn't figure out what it was trying to do. And one of the reasons I LOVE Exoprimal is because I immediately got it. The writing and the tone complement the gameplay so well.
I love this definition too because it to me captures as many games with as wide a net as possible. You get slow burn, deep RPGs with strategic combat and unfettered character building, but you also get big dumb action games where ‘I shot the demons and it was really cool’ is also 1000% valid because it was what the designers wanted you to experience.
It also gets you in a good headspace to try new games, sort of ‘meeting a game where it’s at’ so to speak - instead of trying to force what you expect onto the game top down.
I agree as well. I think this is the reason why designers define "design pillars". It's the "What is this game trying to do" part of your approach
Not a game dev but a frequent dorky Metacritic user here, I'll just say that I think the games in Metacritic's 90s are sometimes caught up more in their universal appeal rather than strictly quality. I don't mean to say that in a "grr game critics bad" kind of way, I've just observed that some of the most artful, interesting and innovative games I've ever played sit in the (usually high) 80s instead. Some great examples I can think of are What Remains of Edith Finch, It Takes Two, Tearaway, Zero Escape.
I think these games are magnificent but they weren't as universally loved and I guess I appreciate that about them. There's a quirkiness to them that limits their appeal to every critic but speaks to me deeply, and I think the Tim Cain RPG™️ also fits in there.
That's the best definition of what a good game is that I've heard, “a game that you enjoy playing”, I've seen a lot of game reviews on the internet that sound like they're the “ultimate truth”, when they definitely aren't. Thanks for the video!
In my experience, my favorite games do this one thing right: they prevent you from becoming too powerful vs the world you're in. And no game does this better than Microprose's 1992 Darklands...
Whoever did the economy of this game did a _very_ good job in balancing the time/money and income/expenses equations. In short, you just never have too many resources (for long), as this game is constantly chipping away at your resource pools. And it does this in ways that aren't unrealistic or annoying. Expenses are just a fact of life and they make it a seamless part of this game. Too...
They balance out the power factors so that even maxed out characters -- highest skills, best equipment, power-ups (prayers and potions) -- can still be threatened by even mediocre enemies in the game. For one, even weak enemies, if they gang up on and surround the maxed out, powerful character, stand a decent chance of seriously wounding them and maybe even killing them (if your entire party is likewise overwhelmed). But even if they go one-on-one against a similar opponent, they will be challenged and maybe even struggle. So no matter how strong your characters get, they are NEVER unbeatable. This is the only RPG that I know of that has mediocre town guards (not beefed up for difficulty's sake, in pathetic hope that you won't easily beat them at low level), but still manages to make you fight for your life to desperately escape a town, wherein you've fallen on the wrong side of the law.
There's other features, as well as flaws, that Darklands has, but balance of power and economy are the one thing that puts it above all others. Wish more RPGs could be more like it, in that regard!
I rate this video 100/100
Thank you.
You're the man Tim! I've also really been enjoying the 20 year celebration series about Obsidian and it's history. Your work with that team was heavily featured in ep.4. Thank you for what you do and looking forward to Outer Worlds 2 so damn much!
To me a good game is where you can feel the love,passion,tear and sweat developers poured into,it absorbs your soul and mind,you lose sense of time and reality,you remain speechless as the artistic vision and ambient music work in harmony together so much that you prefer that world to the real one
"There are old games with outdated graphics that triumph in delivering this experience that newer games couldn't even dream of doing" "In other words technology isn't the limit,it's your creativity in using the current tech for the best possible outcome"
I would wager that the reason you might tend to see more criticism for The Outer Worlds, is because it has reached so many different people, that there is going to be a wider variety of opinions circulating about it. I personally love the game, and I consider it to have my favorite “conversation system” that I’ve ever seen in a game. I can’t even count how many times I laughed out loud or was otherwise pleasantly surprised to see all of the different dialogue choices in that game. It really helped me feel as if I could really tailor my character’s personality in a way I don’t know any other game had in the past. The conversations also felt much more free flowing and branching then say the way they are in Bethesda’s RPGs. Probably getting a little off topic here, but end of the day, I really appreciate and agree with your stance that people should focus on what they love and enjoy, and just leave the things they dislike behind, rather than spend all their time griping and declaring themselves the arbiter of what is a good or bad game.
I played about 3/4 of it and none of the characters were likable or memorable enough for me to recall.
For me it had kind of lame guns and tbh the story was so one sided it felt really lame.
I was playing an RPG but siding with the corporations was just ludicrous, they sacrificed a nuanced story for corpo jokes, they showed no benefit to the corporation factions.
@@BlackMasterRoshiI quite enjoyed the companion characters, Parvatti in particular. Felt like I had my own Firefly crew.
@@flingymingyThe combat wasn’t the best aspect of the game by a long shot, but I enjoyed the choice and consequence nature of many of the quests. Perhaps the end decision could’ve been more nuanced, but there were quite a few little choices along the way that were engaging and interesting.
@@adamwhite4858 Yeah, Parvati is great.
Thanks for creating Fallout and all the memories that came along with it!
I think we all knew the ultimate answer to this question, but the journey to that answer was enjoyable.
I have a habit of heavily critiquing games I love to play. I don't know if that's my QA experience affecting how I view games, or if it's always been a trait of mine. But the more passionate about a game I get, the more I'll dive into its flaws to point out how the game could've squeezed a little bit of extra mileage from what's already present. As for metrics for what makes a good game, from a developer's perspective I think a good game is a game that you were proud to make and having learned something from the experience. From a gamer's perspective, a good game is a game that gives me a satisfying and enjoyable experience that was worth the time and financial investment. Very abstract and subjective metrics, but these things are mostly subjective anyway.
It's because when you like something, you place it to a high standard, and you want to see that it adheres to that. Because it's something that is worth liking, it is felt it deserves to be better than what it might be. This is a superior mindset to have when you are a fan of something. As it's far more useful, and you can tell people why you like a game, and not just "because fanboyism".
Yep, if you enjoyed or liked a game, then it's a good game for you.
I recently finished Mars: War Logs by Spiders. It's a flawed game, relatively short with some terrible voice acting and dialogue but I really enjoyed it and the fact I completed it, is huge for me, as I have a habit of not completing games.
The PC version has a 59 review score aggregrate on Metacritic but a 7.1 user score. It'd be considered an average game on those scores and it probably is. Yet I really enjoyed it. I'm now moving on Bound by Flame and The Technomancer, also by Spiders.
Yeah, Spiders keep getting bad to mediocre reviewed, but personally I always loved them. I still replay Faery: Legends of Avalon every couple years.
@@VieneLea The Technmancer is really good so far. It's better than Bound By Flame.
Obviously Greedfall is their best reviewed title though and it's not one I've played yet but I do own it on Steam.
Not tried Faery: Legends of Avalont though.
I’d love to see longer videos from you Tim where you use more examples and really drill down on your ideas
What makes a good game??? If it has Tim's seal of approval.
And Leonards :)
Damn, i came here to say this.
I think a clear direction/vision is what makes a great game. You can not like it, but still respect that it achieves what it sets out to do. I think if the game has a clear objective of what it wants to be and delivers that and then some, it's great.
Though completely agree with your conclusion. At the end of the day it's all just people's opinions and no can think for you other than yourself. It reminds me when I played Two Worlds for the 360, I just picked it up at the shop, knew absolutely nothing about it, but loved it, despite the jank. If I had seen others opinion I would've focused on the things they were saying and would've never of enjoyed it.
Well said. Sites like Metacritic do a disservice to gamers (and movie and TV audiences, for that matter) by providing an aggregated score. We’re conditioned to associate high percentage averages with success (like our own grade point averages) and assume that we can find “A” games the same way, failing to remember our own impressions matter most. Like Emerson said, “insist on yourself.” 😊
I use metacritic just to get some info is the game total trash,and i look for metascore and user score,and trust me the gamss bellow 5.5 or 55 by metacritic are baaaaad,even some with higher,but i get what you are saying,if im interested in a game i will try it no matter what and see if i like it,because that is what matters the most in the end.
A 5/10 should be an average game, a C grade game. But since most Americans follow US school grading a 5/10 is a failure. But I don't even go to reviews anymore. This isn't the 90s where you just got one source of info to figure out of a game is good. If you're on the fence about a game just watch someone play it and decide if that game is for you.
@@Mirokuofnite 5/10 is not average game,and it's not scored as average,i know that is confusing,but average game is somewhere at 7.5,and that is what you see for example in ign or gamespot reviews.
@@EyefyourGf Because those companies use American school grading. But I remember when magazines (EGM) would give a game a 5/10 and call it average middle of the road nothing wrong game. Ideally it should be like that, but nobody wants something average or middle of the road so everything is weighted to the end of the scale. You've been conditioned to accept that as the scale in numbers go up 1-10, 1-100 that anything is the middle is bad.
Hey Tim. I really like the way you talk in your videos. No filler sounds like UMMM OOO MMMM etc. You know what you are talking about, and not filling the silence by reflex is a skill that I'm almost jealous of.
By the way, I played Fallout for the first time when I was maybe 12 and it has since occupied a special place in my heart. When I started making my own games I wanted to make an RPG with Fallout-style mechanics, so your work inspired me a lot. Still haven't shipped a game like that, but who knows what the future holds?
Not being a native English speaker, games like Fallout are what made English into one of my top grades in school. It was so easy when you spent your free time in dialogue trees!
Thanks for enriching my life. Have a nice day!
PS. My GF thinks all your video thumbnails are EXTREMELY CUTE because you look so happy-go-lucky in each and every one.
I agree, but just as an aside: sometimes people ranting about a game whether they liked it or not can lead to some interesting discussions on game design (so long as they're providing supporting arguments and not just stating something is good or bad).
Interactivity. The defining feature of a game, in contrast to other media, is its ability to react to player’s decisions.
I can’t always watch these on time, but when I can catch up to them they bring so much insight and perspective thank you again for posting Tim!
Hello Timothy,
In this video you portray perfectly the issue with today's game desginers, you don't have a view on what makes a good game, do you think that if you ask Miyamoto what is a good game, he will simply tell you "I liked it"? No, even if it's wrong or imperfect you still need a critical opinion.
I actually think current generation of gamers and game designers don't even know what a game is, thankfully there are tons of ways of measuring the qualities of a good game and none of them are the ones you mentioned:
Interactivity: does the game have mechanics or ways for me to interact with the game?
Quality: Is the game actually functional and playable?
Originality: is the game an actual innovation or is it creative, maybe it is jut a remix from other games?
Audio and visual quality: did the artist do a good job in audio design? is the soundtrack good? are visuals bad? maybe they are bad but innovative, maybe the artist tried to make a new graphic style.
The just feels good measurement is a perfect recipe for terrible games and it makes me wonder even when I respect your work sooo much if you just got it right by accident or pure instinct.
Answer: Timothy Cain!
Your answer to the question is such a valuable outlook to be utilized in life. Thanks Tim.
I don't like sales as a metric for determining what is a good game. It is said that Velvet Underground & Nico's first album only sold 30k copies. But that everyone that bought it started a band.
Ditto for "critic" scores. Ex: Fallout 3 is 91 on Metacritic. New Vegas is notoriously 84.
A good game is one that contributes positively to the world.
This means a good game can: not be fun, not be successful, not make money, and not be well made. It just has to make the world a little better because it exist.
I've always had a good is a fun game.
And you're the only one who can find that out.
Very good arguments on what kind of game is considered good. I think one of the greatest tricks and mysteries and mysteries of our world is that everything is actually much simpler. Like it or not. Try and change your approach until you succeed. Great trick because of which I believe that there is a god. Too simple and great at the same time.
And to this I would also like to say that in my youth one of the greatest traces in the soul was left by the game Arcanum. And what a miracle and delight after so many years, already learning and trying to walk in the world of the creator of game universes, it’s to run into its creator in the vastness of TH-cam and be able to write to him: - "Great work! And thank you very much for all the joy and pleasure what you gave me!"
I agree, but the entire topic has room for more nuance, so I often try to make a minor distinction between subjective and objective pieces of a game I'm talking about. The objective pieces are just the skeleton, though, so ultimately any complete critique must give way to subjective reasoning. I try to frame my opinions as additions to a well-rounded conversation rather than as an argument against an alternate sentiment. I often find myself in total agreement about the details of a game ("liked this, didn't like that, wanted more whatever") and the only difference is, like you said, how we all weigh each aspect to form sometimes polar opposite opinions (such as the Great Internet War of '23; "Tears of the Kingdom: a 10/10 or just a 7/10?")
You took this in a completely different direction than I expected. This is more about the dispute over which games are good and which aren't rather than an actual analysis of the mechanics and craft that going into making a good game. (Though I realize that's what many of your other videos are about.)
I've spent a lot of time thinking about this topic and am working on an essay on it. There are quite a few things that go into "good" games, but one of the most important things I've noticed is that most good games establish normative states that can then be subverted or iterated on in some fashion. This has a lot to do with setting, but applies to all sorts of things.
If the player comes to understand and become familiar with a location, for example, then changes to that location are more impactful and are understood by the player to have meaning. This is a complex idea with many instantiations and I can't get into all the details here, but one common example is when a game establishes a town area that the player continually returns to and then at some point in the story the town is razed by raiders/natural disaster/evil spirits/whatever. This fundamental change to that location really only has meaning if the town was presented in such a way that the player had time to understand it as a stable, relatively unchanging location that had some sort of meaning to begin with. Where games often go wrong is when they mismanage this paradigm, either introducing changes too quickly or misapprehending their own worlds. And I mentioned, this doesn't only apply to setting - this applies to mechanics, items, characters and other game elements.
My metric: A game is good because Tim Cain made it. :P
Someone said exploding pumpkins makes a good game.
Petting animals.
Grapple hook.
But these may just be individual features that are common in good games.
My favorite feature is when the game doesn't crash.
Exploding pumpkins are the only objective metric for a good game.
Crash is not the worst,bad optimization,constant stuttering is far worse.
Bard's Tale Construction Set will outlive us all?
💖💖💖 thank you so much for these uploads Tim
Worst thing is review bombing which happens everywhere now making user scores worthless.
You might not have a game with a score in the 90s, Tim, but very few developers have worked on the amount of cult classic games that you have!
Fallout 1 was PC Gamer's rpg of the year
Lol these scores mean nothing
Why even rely on reviews these days? If you are uncertain about a game just watch someone stream it for a couple hours and figure if you want to play it. Video game reviews especially from major sites (and magazines in the past) have always been corrupt or the reviewer just plays 30 minutes and writes a review. The short playtime full review got exposed when achievements became a thing and people figured out the accounts being used.
As for what makes a good game. It's subjective to the person playing the game. It's the same thing with all media since its subjective based on the taste of the end user. It might be easier to define what a bad game is over what a good game is.
In my opinion a bad game is one that is fundamentally broken or unplayable. It doesn't matter if the story is good, or it did one thing right. If the game doesn't work, or requires a bunch of mods, and fan patches to get running or be tolerable then it's not a good game on its own merits. That's not counting 20-30 year old PC games that won't run on modern hardware though.
9:27 what is original about fallout 1&2 was the low intelligence dialogue all throughout the games (especially torr in #2).
I do hope some day Tim can at least talk about games he likes
You need to make a mini YT series based on this premise alone.
What makes a Good game
What makes a Bad game
What is actual critique versus subjective ad-hominem
I truly like your answer.
It's weird when people say they hate "jank" games and yet all of a sudden when a AAA title bugs out, it is suddenly fun. Sometimes its better to play a deeply flawed game than a polished one. One still has potential and the other destroys it.
Hey Tim, this video actually made me question something, i would love to hear your thoughts about it in the future, maybe in a video even, its more about games in the past vs games today, why do you think people prefer how old games were made and how do you see these opinion, being a guy that has been developing games for decades now, maybe its because at the time, there was no set convention for certain genres, so every game felt unique? Or maybe because games didnt had the luxury to be release half-cooked? Or maybe these are myths that us, people that play games think its true, regardless i think that a guy that have such beloved games in your portfolio, from old to new, maybe have something in mind when it comes to these questions
"They're good games Brent"
To me, good games are these that were made by people who put lot of ideas and heart into them. People who want to make games fun and not just hastily stitch something together deserve my respect. It usually reflects in the game. Many people told me that older Fallouts are too clunky or have bad graphics and that Outer Worlds aren't what they expected, I love these games dearly. They have unique charm and you can tell the developers worked on them, even though they have their flaws or they don't fulfill someone's expectations. I can see the worldbuilding, the character building (especially how useful are companions in the Outer Worlds), the humor etc.
these games always bring some unique things.
Lot of older games were good and groundbreaking, because people projected various interesting ideas into them, new engines, new stories, new plot twists, innovative mechanics and more. When a game seems bland, repetitive, not very memorable or copying different franchise, it is usually because the devs only wanted money and not many people were interested in developing something deep, or maybe they weren't allowed to by time constraints or company demands.
i like how his eyes still shines at an age in which ill be already dead twise
Sometimes reviews can get tanked on some technical issues... crashes, so visual bugs, etc. Some of the "most favorite" games are about "feel"... immersive feel in the game, fun ability matching (even if not power fantasy), etc.
I think the value of games criticism is in giving the reader a language to express the impressions they already got about a game. Reading criticism as a recommendation is very tricky and other than what you said about finding reviewers with similar tastes to you, there's no surefire way to always be happy with your purchases.
So simple. Thanks Tim
Putting my utilitarian hat on, the value of a game is the potential aggregate utility it provides. So sales divided by market size times review as a percentage divided by sales price should give you an estimate.
Hi Tim,
Concerning Arcanum: in the Tarant Crystal Ball sidequest, why was it decided to make it impossible to be morally neutral in that situation? I wanted to know more about Madame Toussause's motivation before making a decision.
Haha love that quest
In my experience the best way I can judge a game is to judge it's internal consistency. it's not an objective view but so is the art nevertheless as an artist you still can improve your art so there must be a way to judge. Judge not in global scope like "this game mechanic is bad" or "this narrative is bad" but create a mental map of a game as you explore it and as further you explore a game you can find elements of the game or see how existing things evolve and try to either broaden your mental map of the game or decide that some element does not fit your map. You can be wrong and you will be wrong sometimes but it is a best reasoning that I can think of.
A good game...a game that achieves what it sets out to do.
A game that does one thing extremely well, but other things sort of come up short might be seen more as a proof of concept.
I'd think something like steam reviews are better than professional critics because the pros are often ideological, and the customers are, well, the ones buying the games and are the actual fans.
This video is like an extended version of the "shhh, let people enjoy things" meme. Love it. Well said Tim
Well people should enjoy whatever they like movie or a game,but there are games or movies which are objectively bad/good,it's not that simple to point out why certain people will have fun with something or wont,but bad/good games exist,and in most cases i could name more then few reasons why certain game is better then xx game,and it has nothing to do with sales,for example i can compare one of my favorite games GTA San Andreas vs GTA V,and GTA 5 comes nowhere near San Andreas in gameplay features,il name just couple things present in San Andreas which are not in GTA 5 or just partially present.
1.Character Customization (it's present in GTA 5,but not on same level,it's basic)
2.Property Purchases (GTA 5 you can do this only in multiplayer,can't do it in SP)
3.Gang Territories ( in San Andreas you could fight for land with gangs,and generate income)
4.Multiple Cities (you could visit other cities,which were quite different one from another)
5.Role-Playing Elements (Stats,getting fat,muscle,better driving etc)
6.Mini games (which are not present in gta 5,as far as i can remember)
You can't say gta 5 is objectively better then San Andreas (unless you are only looking at graphics) while it's missing all these features,i mean you can say it,but you would be lying trough your teeth.
So true my dear Tim! I'm so annoyed by these people who want to bend you at their will and opinions about what is good and what is bad... to all of them I say STFU!!!
I believe the best question we can make if a game is good is: As a Game, does it fulfill the motivations the gamedevs had to create it?
One thing that might help is when people focus on specific types of games and what they have to offer. Let's look at the upcoming Baldur's Gate 3 and Starfield. I'd like to think if I'm looking for a sandbox/sim style game, I would likely get more out of Starfield than Baldur's Gate 3, but can I really expect either of these games to be as much of a sandbox as Rimworld? I don't think so, but if I were to say they are "bad" sims, well, that's a little silly too, but rather I could rephrase that to say they lack the depth of simulation features that other games have, which *might* be a bad thing for people looking for a sim that just have no idea what exactly these games are, see the level of detail in BG3 and SF, and could assume the depth of simulation *could* be high in those games too, without knowing any better.
That's kind of an easy example for people who do know these kinds of games, but I think it gets far more nuanced than that when you start getting into details and expectations, that even when people get into a big rant, even an angry one, it's just because they are really into, otherwise they probably wouldn't have any emotional preference toward it at all, and it's best to consider the overall passion regardless of directional leaning and then see if any useful information is there one way or another, because I've seen positive reviews that have given me no useful information so it's just not super easy to say one way of doing a review or talking about a game is the ideal way. I think those opinions are important, but certainly it would be nice if everyone was constructive, but jeeze, how many other things am I going to wish for?
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" about sums up your sentiments on creative art here.
What make a good game is highly individual, but it turn into a damn battle of good vs evil in who is right when people start voice their opinions. If you look back at games such as Fallout 1 and 2, I don't think they could or would been made today with the humor, inuendos and such it had. I like genres of games, and I like games that approach the player as an adult and not aim to reach some pg rating. What make bad games for me is games that try nickle and dime the player for all its worth with micro transactions, loot boxes and dlc's that feel like it should been part of the core game at release.
Hi Tim! If you woke tomorrow and had to improve on a game you liked but didn't make, what would it be, and how would you improve it?
I used to use that find-a-reviewer method for movies but sort of reversed. I found a reviewer (earlier it was a pair of reviewers, you can probably guess who) whose reviews sort of felt like they'd fallen into a pattern, and I used their takes to sort of get a feel for their preferences for genre and experimental qualities. It got to the point where when I read the review, not just looked at the rating, I knew pretty often whether or not I'd like it based on what their reaction was, whether they liked it or not. Also taught me a lot about my own predilections :)
Siskel and Ebert?
@@the_representative Yep! :)
Nice zen ending "If you liked it, it's a good game"
Only metric i use is how fun is this game (the only use foe it is to entertain me).
Fallout is amazing fun. Arcanum as well. I still play both and have played them for over 20 years. They stand above other entertainment.
I agree with your two end sentences.
I think it's important to draw a distinction between a game that's "well made" and a game thats "fun", because they are not the same thing.
A game that's well-made can have quality graphics, balanced mechanics, an efficient and bug-free engine, etc, and still be a terribly boring experience for some players. You see this most often today with AAA games, mostly due to their focus on formulaic and market-approved design.
Likewise, you can have a game with cheap graphics, shallow gameplay, balance issues, and an unstable engine, and have it become a beloved cult classic. Good examples include the EDF series, as well as games with fundamental design or accessibility issues like pre-Steam Dwarf Fortress. Both games are a blast to play for their fans, but have some glaring issues that would never be acceptable in a professional environment (though EDF seems to just be running with it these days).
As gamers, we should learn to distinguish between these two concepts, to make it easier to discuss and critique products.
As game developers, we should learn this distinction so as not to be mislead by marketability, social trends, or personal biases. The player experience shouldn't get lost by trying to polish and over-tune the game design.
I've seen too many projects ruined by such short-sightedness
Id love to hear your thoughts on letting others in on your creative vision effectively. Fallout was your baby, how do you deal with people suggesting changes to it when you're going through making a game with others?
Overtime thats pretty much the conclusion ive come to, as long as you are having fun, enjoying the game. Thats all that matters at the end of the day
Absolutely! I find it so strange that people want to over simplify and categorize everything. It's not just games, but every facet of life. Just go with your own personal tastes and who cares beyond that!
often the simplest answer is the correct one
Just listened to the video you leaving Fallout 2. That made me ashamed that I never bought and played Arcanum. I was tied in military service at the time and somehow missed it afterwards. I promise, I'll fix my mistake soon.
But I really enjoyed the ***t out of Vampire Masquerade few years later. I just remember how brutal it was on my Pentium 4 and GeForce4 back then. 😊
You know the game is more than good if it blows your mind,do something what you have never seen/felt before. For me, more than good games were: tetris early 90`s(simple concept , easy to understand but difficult to master ,endless fun), doom 1993(shooting got real n scary, and it has coop now), tomb raider 1996(when games went fully 3d n puzzle solving was fun on square grid, you could even swim under water) fallout 1997(my first introduction to crpg and what a ride it was) , half life 1998(when AI enemies were broadcasting your location between themself on the radio and then they threw grenade at the very spot where you were hidden, you were nowhere safe ), Gta 3 2001 (when sandbox went 3D n you forgot to play main story you just try joyriding around town for hours upon hours listening to local radio stations ). Half life 2 2004 (to solve puzzles you need to use gravity n physics what? no way valve nailed this),The walking dead 2012 (the story done right ,on its own master piece, very impactful ) GTA 5 2013(you think you have seen it all but then rockstar introduces 3 different characters which you can seamlessly switch between). Beat saber vr 2018 (cant believe video games made me exercises while looking silly).
It's a good game, Brant.
But, yes, seriously, it's been a long time since I got tired of the idea of quantifying how good a game is. And I'm especially exhausted by people who think it can be done "objectively".
Consensus isn't necessarily useful, and at the end of the day a good game (a good piece of art) on an individual level is one you willingly engage with that leaves you with feelings you are satisfied with.
(You can be both sad and happy about that sadness if that's your jam, but if you're sad in an unsatisfying way... the game might not have been good for/to you.)
So what I'm hearing is if I'm going to give someone my opinion about a game I should include the reasons why. Such as
"I like Frostpunk because you make choices with long ranging consequences and the consequences can change between playthroughs." Rather than just "Frostpunk is a good game."
I should add something to this discourse:
Some highly rated games (via reviews mostly) haven't aged well and on modern reviewing may not be considered as good as they were upon release (for various reasons).
Many folk, for example, say that Synidate is one of the best games ever made. I tried to play it recently on modern tech with a modern eye and hated it. I think it's in part due its age and the fact games have come on so much now and that I didn't play it at the time (I'm in my 40s, so was I old enough to play it at the time). That doesn't mean it's a terrible game. I just don't like it and I'm not going to begrudge anyone of it being one of their favourites, or indeed the innovation it had at the time in the gaming industry.
I feel like most game designers should watch this channel :D
Fallout sales to outer world sales is not a fair comparison because fallout is not on consoles. Most people that loves fallout 3 through fallout 4 would probably buy and play Fallout
if they didn't have to buy a PC to do it.
I think a better question is: what makes a good gaming experience?
If Tim Cain has never had a 90+, it doesn’t mean that Tim didn’t make a 90+ game, it means that metacritic is consistently wrong.
I don't know what comes into the pot when you're making a good game, but I definitely know how you can recognize a good game. For example, back in 1998, I had an old 486dx2 and for some reason, when playing Fallout my computer simply rebooted itself from time to time. (it could be 5 minutes or 1 hour. Every single time the combat switched from real-time to turn-based, the pc could crash. ) But it didn't matter, I played Fallout 1 for months and months, even though I had to relaunch my pc 20, 30 times in one session, all that while looking to the dictionary as I couldn't speak English at all back then. The world was so good that such "minuscule" inconveniences couldn't bother me.
To compare game popularity by units purchased should kind of be like inflation where you consider the percentage of population that was playing games at the time. I would say that the population playing video games is much larger today than it was when Fallout came out
By the metric you establish at the end of the video, ALL of the games you've had a part in that I've played are GOOD GAMES.
As soon as I can sustain my way through means of passive income, I will for sure make a game of my own some day. But not before then ,because it would for sure stress me out.
The games that stand the test of time IMO make bold statements about setting and theme. That's part of why Fallout 1 + 2 are so great.
My personal metric is to just gauge it against a gold standard. Every JRPG I play is contrasted against Chronotrigger to discern its quality.
After many years of life, I don't think we can truly agree on what makes a good game :P
Everyone decides on their own what game is good or not.
"Good games is the ones you like" is a good argument against haters, but it's not very good predictive property. People pursue different qualities in games. This means that no objective measure can exist, even if these qualities themselves are objective. I strongly believe there are important objective (explanatory, not statistical!) qualities in games that should be sought after. "This game is good because" is a good highlight of a specific quality. Conflating it to a single impression about a game as a whole is a mistake.
I never played a game thats as unique as Bloodlines & Fallout - if I could erase my memory of playing them I'd do it in an instant so that I could experience them all over again - That makes a good game to me
This is the only bad take i've heard on this amazing channel.
Good and bad and can enjoy it or not are not the same thing.
We can discuss about a game acomplishing what it set out to do or what it should do, regardless of we enjoy it or not.
Your opinion doesn't not matter though. We're interested in what games you like because we're interested in you and your thoughts and ideas. I think Fallout 3 is hot trash, but it's cool to know that you like it for instance.
People don't even agree on a what a game is. And that's fine!
Games. Games never change.
All Tim's games that I played I consider to be damn good games.
People so often confuse their opinion with fact.
8:35: I know for a fact you can get both Masters to train you in Arcanum, despite them wanting to kill each other. Was that unintended?
I believe a game is good if you want to play it without any other factors except it genuinely was fun/interesting/enjoyable. Alot of games nowadays drag you along for more hours, and others were made so big youd never finish them.
Hello!
New fan here. I'm purely a Mobile user and don't have access to a CPU so I won't be accessing the original content of fallout so a question:
Can you describe the master?
Most videos that is a master video you can see the publisher of that video loving the experience he went through in dealing with a master occupied wasteland. Can you do something with it as well?
One thought I have is the Harold cut scenes. Harold just says he was found by some travelers and once they brought him back to the city he remains ever since. Is the Harold from fallout 3 the same Harold?
Anyway it's a honor to ask the origins seed as to what transpires in that storyline thank you so much!
Also can you go into a bit about his murder? Or accusations of murder? All other videos on this topic is not like asking you!
Motivated game devs make a good game!
Hi Tim! I'd love to hear some recent stories about you and Leonard's involvement in the development of Outer Worlds, if you can so soon. It would be especially interesting because I imagine development on a game of this scale and technical complexity (with reputations of other games affecting decision making) compared to your Interplay and Troika games was a completely different experience.